advertisement


Vinyl is not obsolete, Will CD become obsolete ?

Robert said:
Is anyone actually doing that?
Click to expand...

Some people are suggesting that the plethora of formats are a negative.

darrenyeats has implied that the continuation of vinyl is actually having a negative effect on the quality of CD mastering (nonsense in my view).

Evil Emperor has said that vinyl is bought by collectors with absolutely no thought to sound quality (and anyone who argues any different should not be taken seriously). The implication being that continued production of vinyl is a waste of time.

With respect to Hi-Rez, I don't know if it is any better than CD quality, but I have no problem with people selling it and people buying it - it's their choice.

In terms of the CD, I don't know what it's fate will be - it may survive as a smaller somewhat niche format over the long term, it may not.

As to Evil Emperor's view on Neil Young, he's wrong again - in the curmudgeon stakes EE wins bigtime.
 
adamdea said:
No -there is no real argument between Mikas and the author of the paper in relation to the passage to which i was replying because what he says is consistent with Mikas' quote.

It was not being advanced as new information. 24 bits can't actually hurt and doesn;t increase the size of the files massively compared with 192Khz sampling.
Click to expand...
Now that we established that 24 bits can't hurt and still bring better dynamic, or sinal to noise ratio, whatever we call it. I invite everybody to read this fine article:

By Justin Colletti | Published: February 4, 2013:

Justin Colletti is a Brooklyn-based audio engineer, college professor, and journalist. He records and mixes all over NYC, masters at JLM, teaches at CUNY, is a regular contributor to SonicScoop, and edits the music magazine Trust Me, I’m A Scientist.


http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

Michael
 
DSCOTT said:
darrenyeats has implied that the continuation of vinyl is actually having a negative effect on the quality of CD mastering (nonsense in my view).
Click to expand...
Well I take that back somewhat. I shouldn't blame vinyl exclusively for that, so I apologise.

The frustrating thing is that labels are commissioning "digital masters" for CD and download, with one ear on radio, internet videos and internet streaming; and "vinyl masters" or "SACD masters" which are seen as the audiophile masters. What it means is that us computer-based audiophiles are being left as second class citizens and the vinyl boys get the good stuff. (I am not saying this happens in every case, far from it; just that it happens this way sometimes, and that I'm not aware of any case where the opposite has happened.)

Part of this situation is caused by the misconception that vinyl is a superior format, which assuredly it is not. But mastering trumps all in my opinion, I have no doubt better mastering on vinyl will sound much better than poor mastering on any digital format.

However, I accept that if vinyl, SACD etc didn't exist that the same problem would exist in some form. However, I like to think in that scenario there would be two versions of digital master for CD/download, which would be a heck of a lot better from my point of view.

I hope that explains it.
Darren
 
Mikas said:
Now that we established that 24 bits can't hurt and still bring better dynamic, or sinal to noise ratio, whatever we call it. I invite everybody to read this fine article:

By Justin Colletti | Published: February 4, 2013:

Justin Colletti is a Brooklyn-based audio engineer, college professor, and journalist. He records and mixes all over NYC, masters at JLM, teaches at CUNY, is a regular contributor to SonicScoop, and edits the music magazine Trust Me, I’m A Scientist.


http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

Michael
Click to expand...

Pretty reasonable article.
As ever the real issue is audibility.
 
I remember reading that article by Justin Colletti previously.

Seems well argued and factual (this purely from a layman's point of view - which means I don't really have a clue).

I know his article was about sample rates, but it would have been nice to get his perspective on bit depth (16 vs 24) and it's usefulness or otherwise in respect of sound quality.
 
darrenyeats said:
Well I take that back somewhat. I shouldn't blame vinyl exclusively for that, so I apologise.

The frustrating thing is that labels are commissioning "digital masters" for CD and download, with one ear on radio, internet videos and internet streaming; and "vinyl masters" or "SACD masters" which are seen as the audiophile masters. What it means is that us computer-based audiophiles are being left as second class citizens and the vinyl boys get the good stuff. (I am not saying this happens in every case, far from it; just that it happens this way sometimes, and that I'm not aware of any case where the opposite has happened.)

Part of this situation is caused by the misconception that vinyl is a superior format, which assuredly it is not. But mastering trumps all in my opinion, I have no doubt better mastering on vinyl will sound much better than poor mastering on any digital format.

However, I accept that if vinyl, SACD etc didn't exist that the same problem would exist in some form. However, I like to think in that scenario there would be two versions of digital master for CD/download, which would be a heck of a lot better from my point of view.

I hope that explains it.
Darren
Click to expand...

OK Darren.

However, I'm a little more hopeful that the (mostly, but not always) extra effort put into the mastering of vinyl or SACD might actually lead to an overall improvement in the mastering of CD (or digital files) over time.
 
Mikas said:
when we can have the full 144dB that 24 bits can offer?
Click to expand...

Physics limit you to 110-120dB at best. And that's before factoring in the background noise level of your listening room.


darrenyeats said:
the vinyl boys get the good stuff.
Click to expand...

Er, ever heard a modern commercial pressing? I run three TTs, but I never buy new releases on vinyl. What's available here is warped and scratched right after the seal is broken. I am not going to pay 2-3x the price of a CD for that.
 
Jonathan Ribee said:
CD is a second tier backup medium.

1) idevices, computer, dac, etc
2) backup disc of computer media drive
3) CDs

The other thing I find the CD rack useful for is finding things I can't remember the name of but I'm pretty sure it's on the row down from Mobley, slightly to the left. Or near Laswell, or under **** Buttons.

8700879446_0bab951728_c.jpg


But still some of the things that sound best are on vinyl.

Because they do, not because they should.





(Or 1/4" copy of mastertape at 15 ips - but that is a whole other thing)
Click to expand...

IMO mch SACD & Blu-Ray(especially 2L) sound best in most cases, however there are many excellent sounding CD's .
 
formbypc said:
OK, on the assumption you're not a recording engineer, can you provide any backup to show that this is actually what recording engineers do in practice?
Click to expand...

Well I was, for over thirty years, working with digital systems for the last twenty and indeed, this is exactly how it works.
 
Robert said:
Audiophiles buy stuff they don't need or understand every day
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting how few people take me up on my constant offer to convert anything they like to 16/44 and then check if they can distinguish the two by listening alone.

Quite a lot of folks seem to confuse this with buying a CD and buying the "same" on SACD or whatever (or even assuming that the CD layer of an SACD amounts to the same thing) and then crowing about how different they are.

Just for the record, once and for all, I'm saying provide me with the hi-res material which I will convert to 16/44 in my own special way and I doubt you will be able to distinguish the two provided they are both replayed by the same converter.

Incidentally, while I am confident of this about 95% of the time, I do concede there is a small margin of uncertainty. Making the target 16/48 instead of 16/44 reduces this to about 99%, at a guess.
 
Jo 90 said:
I cannot even imagine what I would do with 144db of snr ! How does that work in reality ?
Click to expand...

Maybe this is not the best description, but that would be difference in the level of sound between noise and whatever sound is intended to be heard. The bigger this ratio, the bigger the dynamic range we could use out of the system free of noise and distortion.

Nobody needs 144dB of dynamic range. Our ears can't grasp that much. ...and the 144dB value 'per se' is pretty much 'hardcore' loud, unless of course, you're planning to give an outdoor concert to the neighborhood. But with this dynamic range, the neighborhood wouldn't be able to listen to the quietest sounds from the system unless they were close enough. ...but then again, they would have to run away again to avoid being damaged by the loudest parts... :)

Werner said:
Physics limit you to 110-120dB at best. And that's before factoring in the background noise level of your listening room.
Click to expand...

However, if we can choose the best possible format, why limit ourselves with the theoretical 96dB maximum from 16 bits audio? This is not about needing 144dBs, is about not being limited by 96dBs.

I know that most people don't really need 96dBs, the ones that want to have them, like me, will probably not need it for more than 99% of the time. But this is a matter of principle.
If professional audio equipment is able to record peaks above 100dBs from a full orchestra, than why not choose a format that is capable of reproducing the same?

I know we live in a world where many people believe that louder is better and that ruins most audio productions, but I prefer to preserve a system capable of playing real audio dynamics.

Michael
 
Mikas said:
The bigger this ratio, the bigger the dynamic range we could use out of the system free of noise and distortion.
Click to expand...

Mikas,
I believe the point being made is, for playback 96db of SNR is a lot more than people think it is. And one shouldn't worry about distortion from quantisation if dither is used; the only issue is really just noise.

I agree that 24 bit doesn't do any harm and disk space is cheap. I keep my rips from DVD-A at 24 bit because of this reasoning. But it isn't necessary, in my opinion.
Darren
 
Plutox said:
Just for the record, once and for all, I'm saying provide me with the hi-res material which I will convert to 16/44 in my own special way and I doubt you will be able to distinguish the two provided they are both replayed by the same converter.

Incidentally, while I am confident of this about 95% of the time, I do concede there is a small margin of uncertainty. Making the target 16/48 instead of 16/44 reduces this to about 99%, at a guess.
Click to expand...

Interestingly in the article Mikas posted:


http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/...-when-it-isnt/

The author talks about converters that work better for HiRes than 44.1 files (i.e. are not as good as other converters when it comes to 44.1) which adds a lot of confusion to such testing.

He suggests you'd need to compare on a converter that is known to work equally well with both formats, or at least a good 44.1 converter against a converter that handles HiRes but is deficient with 44.1!
 
Mikas said:
However, if we can choose the best possible format, why limit ourselves with the theoretical 96dB maximum from 16 bits audio? This is not about needing 144dBs, is about not being limited by 96dBs.

I know that most people don't really need 96dBs, the ones that want to have them, like me, will probably not need it for more than 99% of the time. But this is a matter of principle.
If professional audio equipment is able to record peaks above 100dBs from a full orchestra, than why not choose a format that is capable of reproducing the same?

I know we live in a world where many people believe that louder is better and that ruins most audio productions, but I prefer to preserve a system capable of playing real audio dynamics.

Michael
Click to expand...
The peak thing is not how it works because the figures are all relative. You Can record the peak whether you have 10-12 -14 -16 - 24 bits .

What 96dB of dynamic range means is that when you record the 100dB peak, the noise is 96db down or so.

Now consider that if the orchestra really does reach a 120 dB peak, what was the background/mic noise level? If it was above 30 dB or so, is the quantisation noise going to make a material difference?

In fact bearing in mind masking etc etc etc, it's unlikely you would notice if the quantisation noise were well above 16 bits.

Also please bear in mind that with noise shaped dither you can effectively get the same perceptible level of noise with 16 bits as with 18 or 20 bits. Aggressive noise shaping may have some risks but you certainly can wring a bit more out of 16 bits. Probably more than you need to


The critical point is that in a properly designed digital system the bit depth simply sets the (quantisation) noise floor. That's basically it.
 
Vital said:
...The author talks about converters that work better for HiRes than 44.1 files (i.e. are not as good as other converters when it comes to 44.1) which adds a lot of confusion to such testing
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but I assumed, on a quick read, that he was referring to A to D conversion when recording, not the converse with which we are all far more familiar.

A to D conversion is generally held to be a more fickle process than the later D to A, if only because many A to D devices internally incorporate a partial D to A in a kind of 'driving in a wedge' analogy.

It was certainly the case a few years ago that a better result could usually be achieved by down-sampling a 96kHz master to 44.1kHz than converting to 44.1kHz directly.
 
Plutox said:
It was certainly the case a few years ago that a better result could usually be achieved by down-sampling a 96kHz master to 44.1kHz than converting to 44.1kHz directly.
Click to expand...

This is in principle still the case, as the two-step approach allows you to choose or tailor the critical anti-aliasing filter, and execute it in software and thus with less constraints than the equivalent filter in an ADC chip (which tends to be somewhat less than ideal in many respects).

The paranoid record in 176.4kHz, not 192, and then convert to 44.1kHz in software.

And of course that final downsampling is to be done after all editing and mastering processing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top